Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lakhan Maravi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 September, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49527
1 WP-37886-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 26th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 37886 of 2025
LAKHAN MARAVI
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manan Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Deepak Sahu Pl appeared for respondents.
ORDER
This is the second round of litigation. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.No.30539/2025 assailing the order of transfer dated 17.06.2025 by which, the petitioner, who is working as Forest Guard has been sought to be transferred from Range Office Dindori Territorial Dindori District Dindori to Forest Guard, Subdivision Office, Shahpura District Dindori.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 14.08.2025 directing respondent No.2 therein to take decision on petitioner's representation and till decision on representation, the petitioner was permitted to continue at the present place of posting i.e. Range Office Dindori Territorial Dindori District Dindori . The said representation has been turned down vide impugned order dated 02/09/2025 contained in Annexure P/4.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 27-09- 2025 11:47:35NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49527 2 WP-37886-2025
3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a patient of kidney disease and has to undergo the process of dialysis on regular basis and such facilities are not available in Shahpura, where the petitioner is being transferred. The petitioner specifically stated in the representation that dialysis is being carried out at the District Hospital, Dindori, where the facility is available, however, no such dialysis facility exists at Shahpura but this aspect has not been considered by the Authority. Hence, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that the petitioner, in the representation, did not state that the facility of dialysis is not available at Shahpura. However, if the petitioner approaches the competent Authority under Clause 24 of the Transfer Policy and demonstrates that such a facility is not available at Shahpura, the Authority shall reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law.
5. Considering the aforesaid aspect as the petitioner is undergoing the process of dialysis which prima facie evident from perusal of Annexure P/3, it would be conducive as well as expedient in the interest of justice, that the Authority reconsider the matter in the light of Clause 24 of the Transfer Policy and also keeping in view the aspect whether the facility of dialysis is available at Shahpura or not.
6. Accordingly, impugned order dated 02.09.2025 contained in Annexure P/4 stands quashed and matter is remitted back to Divisional Forest Officer, Dindori to take decision afresh on the grievance of the petitioner while ascertaining the dialysis facility at Shahpura.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 27-09- 2025 11:47:35NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49527 3 WP-37886-2025 7 . Let a fresh order be passed in terms of the direction issued by this Court in previous round of litigation i.e WP No.30539/2025 within a period of 30 days from today by passing a well reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.
8. Till the decision on representation of within a period of 30 days (whichever is earlier) the petitioner shall be allowed to continue at Range Office Dindori Territorial Dindori District Dindori.
9. With the aforesaid, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE Astha Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASTHA SEN Signing time: 27-09- 2025 11:47:35